A lot of the discussion here lately seems to be focusing on the inequalities in our society -- particularly the span between the rich and the poor.

My question: Is it about equal opportunity or is it about making everyone equal? Is there a general assumption that if everyone is given the same foundation in life that poverty will disappear or that no one will do (much) better than any other?

My question: Is it about equal opportunity or is it about making everyone equal? Is there a general assumption that if everyone is given the same foundation in life that poverty will disappear or that no one will do (much) better than any other?

It's about equal opportunity. Give everyone the same foundation ie educational opportunities but even then there will always be a gap. Not everyone is capapable of differential calculus and in the immortal words of Judge Smails " the world needs ditch diggers too". The question therein lies with having access to the tools to succeed. Some will end up successful and others in a van down by the river regardless but at least we as a society have done what we could. Poverty will not disappear but its effects can be mitigated.

For the time being I would be happy with equal opportunity, but I think we should strive for equal outcomes in the long term. People waste so much energy shuffling each other in a hierarchy, and the contests that surround this artificial pecking order. Equal opportunity is a mere shadow of what we should really strive for, but first things first.

[QUOTE=Duane Gran]For the time being I would be happy with equal opportunity, but I think we should strive for equal outcomes in the long term.

sad. i remember when you started posting here and i've seen your whole train wreck into a communist. from a true middle of the roader, to quasi-libbie, full blown libbie, socialist and now communist.

[QUOTE=Duane Gran]For the time being I would be happy with equal opportunity, but I think we should strive for equal outcomes in the long term.

sad. i remember when you started posting here and i've seen your whole train wreck into a communist. from a true middle of the roader, to quasi-libbie, full blown libbie, socialist and now communist.
Proud to now call him 'comrade.'

Just a matter of perspective, I guess.

Bill, you should see I-64 between Louisville and Lexington! It's just grand & glorious, with all the dogwoods & redbuds blooming.

Meanwhile, you haven't changed a bit. ;) I'm reminded of a Senate hearing when Milton Friedman, a famous economist, was grilled about how he contradicted his earlier writing. His response, paraphrased went as follows:

<i>Senator, when I receive new information I evaluate it and, if appropriate, change my opinion accordingly. It makes wonder what you do with new information.</i>

Proud to now call him 'comrade.'

Just a matter of perspective, I guess.

Bill, you should see I-64 between Louisville and Lexington! It's just grand & glorious, with all the dogwoods & redbuds blooming.


been there my man and youre right. plus the redbuds close to home. its like driving through a water color.

Meanwhile, you haven't changed a bit. ;) I'm reminded of a Senate hearing when Milton Friedman, a famous economist, was grilled about how he contradicted his earlier writing. His response, paraphrased went as follows:

<i>Senator, when I receive new information I evaluate it and, if appropriate, change my opinion accordingly. It makes wonder what you do with new information.</i>


information always has a value and reflects values. some more, some less, and your opinions are based on your values.

like driving through a water color.
You mind if I use that line?

You mind if I use that line?

sorry. its trademarked.

Proud to now call him 'comrade.'

Just a matter of perspective, I guess.

Bill, you should see I-64 between Louisville and Lexington! It's just grand & glorious, with all the dogwoods & redbuds blooming.

The wife and I are going to Cave City next Thursday with plans on seeing the cave and do some hiking in the area. Any suggestions?

The wife and I are going to Cave City next Thursday with plans on seeing the cave and do some hiking in the area. Any suggestions?
Just be careful you go to the REAL Mammoth Cave, a socialist cave supported by MY MONEY in a socialist National(ized) Park (also paid for with MY MONEY), not one of the zillion privatized Republican caves in the area that try to lure you in.

Nah, actually some of those private caves are pretty cool.

Good site:

http://www.mammothcave.com/

[QUOTE=Duane Gran]For the time being I would be happy with equal opportunity, but I think we should strive for equal outcomes in the long term.

sad. i remember when you started posting here and i've seen your whole train wreck into a communist. from a true middle of the roader, to quasi-libbie, full blown libbie, socialist and now communist.
and yet you have remained resolute bill...a real anchor in these shifting waters of political thought.

nmnmnmnm

and yet you have remained resolute bill...a real anchor in these shifting waters of political thought.


youre kidding right? I've moved so far left since coming here i can smell the alcohol on teddy kennedys breath.

Every society has had inequality. Inequality serves many important functions.

As I have said before, the problem is not inequality, it is INCREASING levels of inequality that bodes ill for a society. When the gap increases, the opportunity to JUMP that gap decreases. The larger the gap, the less the social mobility.

Inequality is not my area of study, but in general I think it is far better to ask questions about social mobility than inequality per se. In a society where there is true social mobility, we should see the cream rise to the top, no matter where they start. And we would see the dreck fall to the bottom too. Paris Hilton comes to mind.

The essence of liberal ideology is that there are structural barriers to mobility created by inequality (education, health care especially prenatal and childhood care, etc), and government can and should help people to be all they can be by mitigating the effects of these barriers.

A lot of the discussion here lately seems to be focusing on the inequalities in our society -- particularly the span between the rich and the poor.

My question: Is it about equal opportunity or is it about making everyone equal? Is there a general assumption that if everyone is given the same foundation in life that poverty will disappear or that no one will do (much) better than any other?

Inequality is a natural state, and yet it would be wrong to say that social inequality is good. Historically, great inequality in a society leads to instability. Not all things can be made equal, but equality is a positive American value enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. We should make equal that which we can make equal. Education is a great equalizer in itself; we should start there. It will cost money. It will be to our great advantage as China takes over scientific leadership.

In recent local elections here in IL, almost all the numerous referendums to fund education were defeated. IL funds through local property tax; IL ranks 50th in terms of state funding of education. The Democratic governor has promised not to raise income tax. School boards will be laying off and cutting; class sizes will increase. Educational quality will go down.

Would it not be correct to say that equality is not free?

We must be willing to fund equality to bring the American promise to reality.

A lot of the discussion here lately seems to be focusing on the inequalities in our society -- particularly the span between the rich and the poor.

My question: Is it about equal opportunity or is it about making everyone equal? Is there a general assumption that if everyone is given the same foundation in life that poverty will disappear or that no one will do (much) better than any other?

No, I think it's more about trying to stop killing people, oppressing people and destroying the environment all for the sake of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As I have said before, the problem is not inequality, it is INCREASING levels of inequality that bodes ill for a society. When the gap increases, the opportunity to JUMP that gap decreases. The larger the gap, the less the social mobility.

Unchecked, the natural tendency is for wealth disparity, but once it has crossed a certain threshold shouldn't we take an interest in decreasing the levels of inequality? The way you describe it, I'm worried that we only fight for status quo while the gap inevitably widens.

Unchecked, the natural tendency is for wealth disparity, but once it has crossed a certain threshold shouldn't we take an interest in decreasing the levels of inequality? The way you describe it, I'm worried that we only fight for status quo while the gap inevitably widens.
I could very easily get behind Hoo's definition of liberal ideology and it's application in governing. I'd bet that most true conservatives could as well.

I could not, however, get behind decreasing wealth disparity in Hoo's system. That would definitely have a stifling effect, IMO. Why give people the tools needed to better their station in life only to knock them down once they get there? Does it matter that some people are worth $80B if poverty is mostly mitigated and the general standard of living is, well, livable?

I think we should move it back towards equality, not with equality as a goal, but as a way of increasing mobility chances. Consider that something like national health insurance would definitely move the needle back the other way, and take the fear and uncertainty out of a hugh majority of people's lives.

We have had times of increased mobility. 1947 through the 60s saw great gains for the working and middle class, and plenty of people working jobs like construction, manufacturing, etc. were able to do things that previous generations of that class could not, like buy a home and send their kids to college.

Good luck seeing anything but increased inequalty and less mobility for the forseeable future though.

I'm confused. How can you say this if you yourself judge people by their attire?

I would like us to all have equal access and opportunity to Robert Talbot neck ties and Italian suits. :)

I could very easily get behind Hoo's definition of liberal ideology and it's application in governing. I'd bet that most true conservatives could as well.

I could not, however, get behind decreasing wealth disparity in Hoo's system. That would definitely have a stifling effect, IMO. Why give people the tools needed to better their station in life only to knock them down once they get there? Does it matter that some people are worth $80B if poverty is mostly mitigated and the general standard of living is, well, livable?

First, conservatives do not think government has a role in lifting people up. They think government should get out of the way. Modern conservatives think government is the PROBLEM. That is why they are trying to destroy it.

Second, I don't think my "system" spoke to any way to eliminate wealth disparity. It was an argument for increasing mobility opportunity. That is the basic "equality of opportunity" argument. When an illness can throw a family from middle class to poverty in a matter of months if they are uninsured (and even if they have insurance for that matter) the mobility is pretty much downward for many. Children are going to bed hungry, infant mortality is pretty bad compared to other industrialized western nations, prenatal and childhood care is lacking for many, schools are underfunded... I could go on. I don't think the negative effects of poverty have been "mostly mitigated" in terms of mobility opportunities in our society. If you are born poor, the deck is very, very much stacked against you no matter how smart or hardworking you are. Stacked against you from conception for that matter.

I am for decreasing inequality to increase mobility, and also because increasing inequality will produce many bad things for our society. I did not speak to any particular way or "system" to acheive that goal.

I would like us to all have equal access and opportunity to Robert Talbot neck ties and Italian suits. :)
I'll take a Caraceni suit please. :)

First, conservatives do not think government has a role in lifting people up. They think government should get out of the way. Modern conservatives think government is the PROBLEM. That is why they are trying to destroy it.

Second, I don't think my "system" spoke to any way to eliminate wealth disparity. It was an argument for increasing mobility opportunity. That is the basic "equality of opportunity" argument. When an illness can throw a family from middle class to poverty in a matter of months if they are uninsured (and even if they have insurance for that matter) the mobility is pretty much downward for many. Children are going to bed hungry, infant mortality is pretty bad compared to other industrialized western nations, prenatal and childhood care is lacking for many, schools are underfunded... I could go on. I don't think the negative effects of poverty have been "mostly mitigated" in terms of mobility opportunities in our society. If you are born poor, the deck is very, very much stacked against you no matter how smart or hardworking you are. Stacked against you from conception for that matter.

I am for decreasing inequality to increase mobility, and also because increasing inequality will produce many bad things for our society. I did not speak to any particular way or "system" to acheive that goal.
Bad choice of words on my part. I wasn't speaking as if poverty was a non-issue, I was speaking hypothetically, thus the thread title "All things being equal..." I was also responding to Duane's application of wealth redistribution under the "The essence of liberal ideology is that there are structural barriers to mobility created by inequality (education, health care especially prenatal and childhood care, etc), and government can and should help people to be all they can be by mitigating the effects of these barriers." approach to governing. My intent wasn't to put words in your mouth or tag you with putting forth any type of "system."

I agree completely with what you have posted in this thread and yet I still consider myself a conservative.

I think we should move it back towards equality, not with equality as a goal, but as a way of increasing mobility chances. Consider that something like national health insurance would definitely move the needle back the other way, and take the fear and uncertainty out of a hugh majority of people's lives.

We have had times of increased mobility. 1947 through the 60s saw great gains for the working and middle class, and plenty of people working jobs like construction, manufacturing, etc. were able to do things that previous generations of that class could not, like buy a home and send their kids to college.

Good luck seeing anything but increased inequalty and less mobility for the forseeable future though.

What we're talking about is inequality of wealth, as measured by income and property. The unions could take alot of credit for labor getting a bigger piece of the pie during the 50's, but coming off of WWII, with a manufacturing infrastructure tuned up by the war, everyone was confident and optimistic. The GI Bill enabled returning vets to get a college education, buy a home, start a family and a career with a company that offered promotions every 5 years and retirement benefits.

With many corporations, that's still true, but the general trend has seemed to be toward selfishness and greed, as the country's wealth gets sucked up by an ever smaller elite, and the middle class, once also including blue collar workers, shrinks into living paycheck to paycheck, in chronic credit card debt, with little job security, or faith that life will be better in the future.

This, my friends, is the stuff of anarchy and revolutions. It happened in Russia and France. We got a taste of it in 1968. It will happen again, unless there is a better distribution of wealth, whether through jobs or social programs. That may be the Democratic Party's greatest calling, to reverse the trend towards haves and have-nots, and the social polarization it creates. It isn't about equality, everyone being the same, but about generosity, brotherhood, compassion, community, without which the less fortunate fall through the cracks. There is no reason this has to be in the richest nation on earth.

What we're talking about is inequality of wealth, as measured by income and property. The unions could take alot of credit for labor getting a bigger piece of the pie during the 50's, but coming off of WWII, with a manufacturing infrastructure tuned up by the war, everyone was confident and optimistic. The GI Bill enabled returning vets to get a college education, buy a home, start a family and a career with a company that offered promotions every 5 years and retirement benefits.

With many corporations, that's still true, but the general trend has seemed to be toward selfishness and greed, as the country's wealth gets sucked up by an ever smaller elite, and the middle class, once also including blue collar workers, shrinks into living paycheck to paycheck, in chronic credit card debt, with little job security, or faith that life will be better in the future.

This, my friends, is the stuff of anarchy and revolutions. It happened in Russia and France. We got a taste of it in 1968. It will happen again, unless there is a better distribution of wealth, whether through jobs or social programs. That may be the Democratic Party's greatest calling, to reverse the trend towards haves and have-nots, and the social polarization it creates. It isn't about equality, everyone being the same, but about generosity, brotherhood, compassion, community, without which the less fortunate fall through the cracks. There is no reason this has to be in the richest nation on earth.


1968 was more about the war, 'youth culture' and all that went along with it, and, lastly, segregation.

What we're seeing is more like what happened in Italy between the end of WW1 and the tumultuous years of 1920-1921. This was repeated later in the 1920's in Germany. The poor were taking sides either with the far left or the far right, with the middle increasingly being marginalized. In the end, fascism prevailed, with all that went along with it.

I predict that we will be at the same point in another few years. It all depends which way the next election goes. If we keep on the way we are going, I predict massive urban riots, assasinations, and maybe even civil war.